I was sitting around this morning browsing through the most recent edition of CL, and came across your article, "Top 10 in '10". The article appeared, ironically, a few pages after another columnist's article identifying just a few of this cities many deficiencies [I assume Steve is referring to our former publisher Henry Scott's farewell column]. Yet, in your article not only do you identify, but also seem to embrace one of the biggest detriments to Atlanta's future as a city. In your reviews of what are supposed to be this city's "Top 10", 3 of your selections aren't even remotely close to the city of Atlanta. Honestly, 3 selections in Marietta? Do you really want to inspire the few people that bond together and actually live in Atlanta to flock out to suburbs, taking with them what little urban identification Atlanta actually has. If you want to write an article about reasons to get in the car and get out of Atlanta...ok. But please, please don't promote places that are demonstrably un-urban as somewhere that is a "city destination".
I've lived in Atlanta for 2 years and am continuously disappointed at how little seems to happen in a city that has so many resources at it's fingertips - tons of undeveloped urban space, the world's busiest airport, 5.5mm people in the metro area, a lot of good educational institutes, the list goes on. However, almost everyone in this city seems to be a champion of everything that is everything but urbane. People would rather sit in traffic for 3 hours a day, rather than take public transportation to and from work; People would rather eat under the neon lights of Chili's and Applebee's, rather than eat real, fresh food by real, innovative chefs (how else can you explain the failure of so many great restaurants?).
Point is, is that Atlanta will never be a city that attracts the "best and the brightest" unless the few people that are champions of the urbane start acting like it, and that means pointing out, and attacking the destruction of suburban sprawl, not promoting it.
It's an interesting point of view, particularly for our paper and at this time. Why? Because as the daily paper moves decidedly towards the suburbs, Creative Loafing is proud of focusing our coverage on the city itself. And I agree with many of Steve's later points about sprawls and the identity of the city. But I also feel as though we have a duty to point readers to cool stuff in the area, and balk at the idea that we'd put some kind of geographical limitations on what we do and don't cover. Especially with food, limiting ourselves to intown eateries would exclude huge swaths of ethnic dining, as well as upstart restaurateurs who may not be able to afford the rents intown but may be on the forefront of dining in the area.
But I wonder what other folks think. Do you think it's our moral imperative to fight sprawl by only covering intown restaurants? If that's the case, should I only review places that use sustainable practices? If I know a chef to be a chauvinist pig, should I refuse to cover his efforts? Or is the food all that matters?
Love pork belly.
Some food just doesn't photograph well, even if it is tasty.
Nothing wrong with grease on the walls if the burger is tasty.
That building and all of the ones next to it down to the Dunkin Doughnuts…
"record rainfall, feral pigs, and China are to blame" this isn't the first time i've…
"...years earlier she operated a restaurant in Little Five Points whose decor duplicated that of…